THE ORCHID REVIEW. ’ 43 
-“When,two and a half years ago the plants of M. Léon Hunblot came 
under the hammer, I wrote some recommendation to this zealous traveller, 
the copy of a sketch taken from the living plant well expressing its charm 
and the peculiar blunt base of the lip. All this, as at other times, proved 
_ good for nothing, and it was only Sir Trevor Lawrence, who was merciful 
enough to take cordial care of a plant, now his pride. I hear the few plants 
which stand at disposition immediately rose to five guineas, and when our 
American brethren send their orders, they will be quoted at ten guineas. 
“The moral is that young travellers should only collect known things, 
and send, provided they know the thing, the novelty as perfect to some 
London establishment. When once they have appeared on the scene in 
fine flower, then it may be time to introduce them, as then the word ‘ new’ 
is pronounced in another way than before. The specimen I alluded to is 
the one recently exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence.—H. G. Rchb. f.” 
This is the plant. now so well known and so frequently figured as 
Phaius tuberculosus—the parent of several handsome garden hybrids— 
that the blunder, though excusable enough under the circumstances, 
seems particularly unfortunate, as it necessitates a change of name, 
though it is perhaps a consoling circumstance that the discovery was 
not deferred until the original plant became firmly established under 
some other name, which would only have increased the difficulty. ‘n 
any case the change is unavoidable, and I think Phaius simulans a 
sufficiently appropiate name. for the well-known epiphytal species. 
When the above facts were ascertained living flowers of P. simulans 
were not available for comparison, but, by a curious coincidence, a plant 
was exhibited by Sir Frederick Wigan at the Royal Horticultural Society’s 
Meeting, on Jannary 2gth, when a plant of P. tuberculosus, introduced 
by M. Warpur, was also sent from Kew, with a brief statement of the 
above-mentioned confusion, which circumstance enables me to indicate 
more clearly the differances between them :— 
P. tTuBERCULosuUs (Blume).—Terrestrial, with tufted, ovoid, ringed 
thizomes. Side lobes of lip without hairs; the three deep yellow keels 
24 lines long, somewhat verrucose, high and truncate in front, and thus 
club-shaped, the middle one channelled ; disc behind the keels purple, with 
the nerves only slightly thickened, and bearing near the base numerous white 
hairs, arranged in four rows, the outer pair much smaller than the inner 
pair. Base of column bearing a V-shaped yellow marking. 
P. simuLans (Rolfe).—Epiphytal with elongated, cylindrical, branched 
climbing stems. Side lobes of lip pilose or somewhat pubescent ; the deep 
yellow keels 4 lines long, very closely verrucose, dwarf in front, and the 
lateral pair shortly bifid; disc behind the keels white, with the lateral pair 
of nerves prominently thickened, and bearing near the base a dense circular 
